Measuring Minimum Critical Flow for Normal Breath Sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship between respiratory sounds and flow has always been of interest for researchers and physicians. However, the flow-sound relationship at very low flow rate has been questionable because breath sounds must exceed a minimum flow in order to be audible and different from the background noise. This study aimed to find the minimum critical flow rates for respiratory sounds to be audible and different from background noise. Tracheal and lung sound signals of healthy subjects in two groups of adults (12 subjects) and children (9 subjects) were studied. The values of minimum critical flow were determined comparing the spectrogram of the respiratory sounds at very low flow with that of during breath hold. The values of minimum critical flow for tracheal sounds were found to be 3.7.. 1.7 ml/s/kg and 2.7 .. 1.7 ml/s/kg for adults and children, respectively. The minimum critical flows for lung sounds were found as 6.2 .. 1.8 ml/s/kg and 4.0 .. 2.9 ml/s/kg for adults and children, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".